High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 12206 OF 2024NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS IN HIGHEREDUCATION AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. R.O. AwasarmolAGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.S. DandeAdvocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Alok Sharma… CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2024 Per Court :1.This matter is mentioned before us urgently forconsideration. It was on board of Court No. 1 on 13.11.2024. Itwas removed from the board, considering the assignment. Both theparties are ad-idem that the matter lies before our Court. As thecampaign for assembly election is closing on 18.11.2024, we havetaken up this matter for consideration.2.Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP appearsfor respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Advocate Mr. AlokSharma appears for respondent no. 3 and waive notice. Thismatter is being heard finally with the consent of the parties.
Legal Reasoning
2 3.Petitioner no. 1 is the organization of the teachersrendering services in the non agricultural universities and theaffiliated colleges thereto which is espousing the cause for itsmembers by this petition. By communication dated 05.11.2024issued by respondent no. 2, the teachers / members of petitionerno. 1 are prohibited from participating in the election campaign ofState Assembly Election. The members of the petitioner aspire toparticipate in the election campaign to support the contestingcandidates. Impugned circular referes to government resolutiondated 20.05.2010.4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neitherthe impugned circular nor government resolution dated20.05.2010 can be made applicable to the teachers of non-agricultural universities or colleges affiliated thereto as those areapplicable to non-teaching employees only. It is submitted that theservices of the non-teaching employees of non-agriculturaluniversities and their affiliated colleges are regulated byMaharashtra Civil Services Rules by the government letter dated08.04.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the orderpassed by the Writ Petition No. 6267/2019 to buttress thesubmission that teachers are entitled to participate in the electioncampaign. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatthe impugned circular violates their fundamental rights.5.Learned AGP Mr S.S. Dande appearing for respondentsnos. 1 and 2 supports the impugned circular. It is submitted thatthe members of the teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff of 3 non-agricultural universities and their affiliated colleges aregoverned by Maharashtra Civil Services Rules. It is furthersubmitted that orders of the co-ordinate benches referred to by thepetitioners are not the binding precedent.6.Learned Advocate Mr Alok Sharma appearing forrespondent no. 3 vehemently opposes the submissions of thepetitioners. He tenders on record judgment and order dated03.05.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Writ Petition No.4640/2024, to support the proposition that if a teacher is activelyassociated with the political party, it may hamper the educationalatmosphere of the school. He submits that education should bekept away from politics and therefore, consciously, the impugnedcircular has been issued.7.Petitioner no. 1 is espousing the cause of its memberswho are the teachers rendering services in non-agriculturaluniversities and their affiliated colleges. The election process of theState Assembly Election is underway. The campaign of the saidelection is closing on 18.11.2024. The polling is scheduled for20.11.2024.8.At the outset, it needs to be clarified that the serviceconditions of non-teaching employees of the Non-AgriculturalUniversities and Affiliated Colleges are governed by Standard Code(Terms and Conditions of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules of 1984,which was made applicable from 01.05.1985. As the serviceconditions were outdated, the higher and technical department ofthe state government proposed to revise those rules and the 4 Committee was constituted for drafting Rules, named as CommonStatutes. Till the new rules are made applicable, the MaharashtraCivil Services Rules are made applicable and accordingly,government resolution dated 20.05.2010 was issued. The term ofthe Committee was six months which was extended up to30.05.2013 vide government letter dated 08.04.2023. The relianceplaced by the petitioner on the government resolution dated20.05.2010 and government letter dated 08.04.2013 as such hasno relevance for deciding the controversy involved in this petition.9.Learned AGP Mr S.S. Dande has made a candidstatement that the teachers of non-agricultural universities and theaffiliated colleges which are receiving grant-in-aid from thegovernment are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1979’ forthe sake brevity and convenience). On instructions, he states thatsuch teachers are prohibited from participating in the electioncampaign. He further refers to Rules, 1979. According to him, Rule5 of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules rightly referred to thecircular in question prohibiting the teachers from taking part inpolitics.10.It is not controverted by the petitioner that members ofthe petitioner no. 1 are either employees of Non-AgriculturalUniversities or the Affiliated Colleges receiving grant-in-aid. Itwould be necessary to refer to the following provisions of Rules,1979 :“5.Taking part in politics and elections.-- 5 (1)No Government servant shall be a memberof or be otherwise associated with, any politicalparty or any organization which takes part inpolitics, nor shall he take part in, or subscribe inaid of, or assist in any other manner, any politicalmovement or activity.(2)……(3)……(4)No Government servant shall canvass orotherwise interfere with or use his influence inconnection with or take part in an election to anylegislature or local authority.”11.The government servant is prohibited from beingassociated with the political party as well as from taking part inpolitics. By Sub Rule 4, a government servant is further prohibitedfrom canvassing or taking part in any election of the legislature orthe local body. Considering the express provisions in the Rules1979, respondent no. 2 / Director is justified in issuing theimpugned circular. The reference to the government resolutiondated 20.05.2010 is to indicate that even non-teaching employeesof such universities and colleges are covered by Rule 5 of theMaharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Till their serviceconditions are finalized and culminated into a common statute,they are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct)Rules. We, therefore, find substance in the submissions of therespondents that there is a prohibition for the members of teachingstaff as well as members of non-teaching staff from taking part inthe election of the state legislature. 6 12.Learned Advocate Mr Alok Sharma refers to the orderof the co-ordinate bench in Ubaid Ur Rehman Ata Ur Rehman andOthers Versus The Election Commission of India and Others, inWrit Petition No. 4640/2024. In that case, the question waswhether the employees of the private schools who are members ofthe political party or associated with a political party can beengaged for availing their services for parliamentary elections. It iscontended that the employees associated with the political partyare not qualified to act as polling officers or presiding officers. Inthat matter it was the contention of the election commission thatto carry out the process of election, there was no adequate staffand care was taken for not causing the political influence by thethen teachers. It was found that the political party to which thethen petitioners claimed association and active membership hadnot filled any candidate from Jalna constituency, and therefore, thethen petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 5 were treated to be qualified forentrusting the duty in the election process. So far as the remainingpetitioners are concerned, it was recorded that care would betaken to assign them ancillary duties. The judgment of the co-ordinate bench in the matter of Shrikant Subhash Pande VersusThe Deputy Director of Education and Others, in Writ Petition No.5896/2011 was referred.13.The co-ordinate bench quoted the observations ofShrikant Subhash Pande (supra) in paragraph no. 10 of the order.The observations signify the object of keeping employees awayfrom the politics and education should not be allowed to bepolluted in any manner by bringing politics. Therefore, the writpetition was dismissed following the observations in Shrikant 7 Subhash Pande’s case (supra). In that context of the matter, it washeld that employees of the school who are associated with thepolitical party cannot claim immunity from engaging them in theelection process.14.The facts in the case at hand are totally different. Herethe teachers of the universities and the affiliated colleges aredesirous to take part in the said assembly election. In the citedjudgments, employees wanted to stay away from the electionprocess, whereas in the case at hand employees wanted to takepart in the campaign in the election process. Further, theimplication of MCSR Rule 5 and the government resolution dated20.05.2010 did not fall for consideration in the cited matter. Wefind that the order passed in the matter of Ubaid Ur Rehman AtaUr Rehman (supra) is not applicable to the present case.15.The petitioner has also relied on the order passed bythe co-ordinate bench in Writ Petition No. 545/1945. In that case,it is not made clear as to whether the teachers of the universitiesand colleges and the affiliated colleges were prohibited fromparticipating in the election process. There is no reference toMCSR Rules or government resolution dated 20.05.2010. We donot find that the said order is a binding precedent. Similar is theorder dated 04.10.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 6267/2019 inthe case of Shankar S/o. Tatyaba Sangle Versus The State ofMaharashtra and Others. It was an order based on the statementsmade by counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. Thefacts in the case at hand are totally different. The said order is nothelpful to the petitioners. We find no substance in the petition. 8 16.Writ Petition is dismissed.[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ S.G. MEHARE, J. ]Thakur-Chauhan/-